Rachel Maddow Makes the Case for Why Lieberman Should Not Keep His Committee Chair
By Heather Friday Nov 14, 2008 6:45am
Rachel makes a very strong case for why Joe Lieberman should not remain the Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs and why the damage he could do and already has done in that position far outweighs the slim hope he might vote with the Democrats when really needed.
Responding to Evan Bayh's promise that they'll take the chairmanship away from him if he tries to pull any investigative shenanigans on Obama, Maddow notes adroitly:
Are you really going to wait until he starts his first off-base witch-hunting investigation of Obama into whether he's a Marxist or a traitor or whatever, and then you're going to take away his gavel. [Laughs] I'm sure that's going to go over great.
... Listen, Democrats, you have lost Lieberman anyway. If you boot Lieberman out of his chairmanship, I know you probably won't get your 60 votes. But you do get a guy who politicized national security and homeland security in a disgusting fashion during this election, you do get him out of one of the most important security jobs in the government.
You go, Rachel. Why didn't the Democrats already do something about his failure to hold any hearings on hurricane Katrina and the no-bid contracts given to Cheney's buddies? Why have they allowed someone who's acted as a protection arm for the Bush administration to chair one of the most important Senate committees in the Congress already and not investigate the fraud and corruption that has occurred in this illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq?
How can Democrats think it would not be a complete political disaster if they tried to shut Lieberman down after he decided to use the position to possibly go after Obama in the same way Republicans went after Clinton for overblown controversies? Especially given the statements he's already made about Obama regarding foreign policy, particularly his oft-stated fear of what actions Obama might take as President?
Joe Lieberman needs to go before he can do any more damage than the Democrats have allowed him to do already.
Login or Register to post comments.
No Joe, he must go, every Republican he loves to blow, on our side a big no go, so so so...make him go.
To make phone calls to get rid of Joe Lieberman, go here:
This is a list of all Senators.
This is a list of who is on the steering committee. Figure it out and call the SOBs and let them know what you want them to do.
He will turn on the Democratic Party as soon as he can and try to block everything Obama or the rest of the Democrats do because Obama had the temerity to run against McCain.
The Democratic Party needs to get a spine.
She said 'wussy',... heeh heeh heeh!
I don't understand how this sniveller has the gall to prostitute himself.
Lieberman is a traitor to the Democratic party. He must go. And please send Harry Reid with him.
and give Pelosi the boot as well.
Hopefully, people are still paying attention to all things political.
I'd like to see the Democrats grow a spine and really work for the mandate of change.
The Democratic Party is a corporate owned party-both parties are. The Senate is a country club comprised of many political whores. There have never been very many actual Progressives in Congress and most of them are in the House anyway. McCain can happily campaign in GA, supporting a Vietnam draft dodger like Saxby. It's all about power and the worship of money. You usually have to sell your soul to get the bucks from the rich to even run. Bill Moyers said it best: "Money ruined Democracy." The Dems have plenty of spine to stand-up for their masters. We are not their masters of course. Bottom Line: Congress represents Congress.
Forget Rachel, what does this guy think is the case for Liebermann not keeping his committee chair?
http://planetstas.blogspot.com/
"Forget Rachel".
Are you mad badad?
I count the moments.
Rachel (Hi there Rachel, I know you read this stuff) hit the nail on the head. She hit the nail very hard on the head. The things Lieberman said during the election must have harsh consequences. Go look at the speech he gave at the Republican convention and tell me he should keep his Chairmanship. The Democrats have to take away his Chairmanship and then they may be lucky and he will leave the caucus. This is so serious I simply cannot put it into words.
and it's time for Joe to blow. Who needs a lying, back-stabbing a$$hat in such a position of power?! It's not like he's ever going to help out the Democrats when then need him... he's basically a republican(t) already. Lose this useless baggage and I hope he NEVER gets elected into public office again after showing himself so clearly as the traitor he is.
or Bayh.
I'm sick of DINOs and millionaire politicos.
Agreed, Captain Kangaroo! And Rachel is dead on in this piece!
And no, poopyhead, "vengeance for every slight" has nothing to do with it. I'm tired of being told that we are acting like babies for saying that Joe Lieberman, the world's biggest baby in the Senate --- the one who lies to his constituency to get elected, threatens us and holds his breath until he gets whatever he wants --- should simply lose the chairmanship on which he can do the most damage to the Democratic agenda.
I know our president-elect wants to be the post-partisan leader, but this is too much. If Joe Lieberman keeps his chairmanship, there's no reason to remain Democrats in any official way. We should all re-register as independents or decline-to-states, and let the party know that, while we worked hard to prevent the mass suicide of a McCain/Palin administration, you can't take us for granted.
And Bayh's arguments continue to make as much sense as screen doors on submarines.
There is no logic to what Rachel is suggesting, only vengence. Always trying to get one-up on someone regardless of the results has to go away with the Rove/Bush/Cheney regime.
Rachel's argument that if the demos could drop Joe's chair anytime, then why didn't they take him off the Katrina investigation when he didn't investigate forgets that the Demo's needed his vote then. The only reason punishing Joe is an issue now is because he isn't needed to get a majority (remember Rachel?).
I think the Demo's are acting grown-up and it makes me trust them. Exacting vengance for every slight is sooo 2008.
This is not about vengeance. This is about not having somebody in your caucus who you do not trust. What would you say about Tom Delay being in the Democratic caucus or being the Chairman of Homeland Security Committee?
This is not about vengence .... this is accepting consequences for your actions .... something most parents are teaching their children!
Joe chose to support McCain, which is his right, but now that that plan didn't work he can't expect to snuggle back into his comfy position with the Democratic Party. Democratic chairmanships should be held by Democratic senators who are loyal to Obama.
The excuse of the need for his potential vote is pretty weak ... there is no way we can guarantee how he would vote.
Lieberman worked hard to enable John McCain in becoming Bush's third term.
That is not "change" but rather business as usual in the manner of the last eight years.
Last week, the people sent the Government a mandate for change.
Lieberman is simply inconsistant to the mandate.
Plus, he did a shitty job - where was the oversight for the Bush Junta?
Lieberman let the tyrant run rampant.
You want Lieberman starting fishing investigations against Obama?
I don't think you considered Rachel Maddow's argument seriously, as she spoke more of the future than of the past. Lieberman is likely to stand in opposition to the Democrats moreso than he already has in the past.
Furthermore, this isn't simply about him supporting his long-time friend John McCain - or even speaking at the RNC, though that was a fairly slimy affair. No, he has smeared Obama's name - helping to incite the fear and paranoia that the country is doomed should Obama win. He's a divisive, untrustworthy, slanderous rat.
Rachel made an exceptionally rational case for booting Lieberman that had nothing to do with vengeance. She set an example for those of us, myself included, who are so pissed at Lieberman we have trouble thinking clearly.
This is soooooo important. You have to call your Senator and any other Senator and tell them what you think. They are going to have a meeting in the very near future to decide what to do about Lieberman. In my opinion he CANNOT be allowed to keep his Chairmanship. Go here to find the phone number and leave a message! It is SOOOOO easy to do. My god, you have done so much work during this election why would you stop here.
The snakes in the Senate Democratic Caucus will vote to keep Lieberman in on a SECRET BALLOT so no one can judge them for their lack of courage and convictions to uphold what is the RIGHT course of action here.
I truly believe they are all cowering to the hold AIPAC has on everyone in Congress and Lieberman is AIPAC's Rep., not Connecticut's.
I hate to keep rubbing it in, but I told everyone on these pages weeks ago that the Dem's wouldn't touch him. He could have publicly spit in Obama's face and nothing would happen.
The 51st State of Israel. We should re-locate our capitol to Tel-Aviv where it rightfully belongs and stop this fucking side-show already.
WEll I think that it will be easier for them to vote to get rid of Lieberman's ass. If the AIPAC do not know who vote to kick his ass off the Homeland Security Committee then they will be able to vote to kick his ass off with impunity. These fuckers know what Lieberman did to them.
I hope you are right and I am wrong.
Somewhere in Washington discussing holy-joe's chair:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSe38dzJYkY&fe...
The role of the Israeli lobby needs to be reduced if America is going to start serving the interests of her people.
These are the members on the Senate Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee who will be deciding if Lieberman keeps his chairmanship this week!! After you find out who is on the Steering Committee got to this web page and find the Senator and call their office and leave a message. It makes a huge difference!!
Lieberman is so nasty and untrustworthy that dumping his slimy ass would be too easy.
People like to vote for their incumbent Senators when they hold important committee positions. Make Lieberman as powerless as possible in the Senate so the voters of Connecticut will have a much easier time ridding themselves of him.
My understanding is that it is no easy matter to change a Senate chairmanship once it is given. It requires a filibusterable full Senate vote. Normally, it is probably sufficient to ask a reasonable person—do they have those in the Senate?—to hand over the gavel but Lieberman is not reasonable, to say the least.
if he is expected to cast the 60th vote. He's simply that kind of backstabbing pussy. Expecting anything else is ludicrous.
So long, scumbag.
LIEberdouche? Just curious...
It could be a case of "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. As for those you don't trust - never let them out of your sight."
This is text book strategy from the Art of War by Sun-Tzu. One reason we worked so hard on getting Obama elected was because of his good judgement, I'll trust his judgement on this.
Joe Must suffer repercussions for his positions and his unwillingness to take the responsibility of oversight seriously.
Rachel rocks
I'm gettin REAL tired of waiting for congressional Dems to do the right thing.
The KEY to that whole Mafia mantra is the threat of retribution.
Where is the retribution been for Lieberman. He suffers nothing, he worries about nothing.
In keeping with the Mafia parlance...since he feels he doesn't need to "play ball"...then "whack his ass".
Then he tries to blackmail them and tells them that he will become a Republican. I say "Great, go see how they will treat him. Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out Joe."
There's no guarantee that we're going to end up with 60 democratic votes. I, for one, would rather settle with 59 sure democratic votes than sweat over #60 each time a vote comes up, wondering if Lieberman will vote my way or not. There's no guarantee that even if we DID end up with 60 senators, they're all going to vote together anyway. (Was it Rachel Maddow or Randi Rhodes who once compared democrats to herding cats when it came to a vote?)
Lieberman is unreliable and bad news. Take away his chairmanships and see what he decides to do. Don't expect anything from him, plan without him, and you won't be disappointed.
Anyway, would the republicans happily welcome someone who switches parties for professional convenience?
In all this discussion, there is no assumption whatsoever that JL will vote according to his own, personal values, or to the wishes of his constituency. You know, THE JOB THAT HE WAS HIRED TO DO. Everyone, _including Joe himself_ speaks as if his vote is to be bought, traded, etc.
If Bayh & Dodd, et al are correct, and that he 'votes w/ the D's the majority of the time,' it is only because the D's have given him power. If you take that away, he will vote... how? According to his principles? _What_ principles?
This is far beyond what JL wants, this is about the kind of morality the D's want to foster in DC.
It's refreshing to see someone concerned with LIEberman's ideals when he abandoned 280,000 people in NOLa who were supposed to benefit from the missing $2,000,000,000.00.
LIEberman is worse than a DINO. LIEberman has no morality. Please do not pretend that anyone who supports the boosh causes can possibly have a moral fiber of any kind.
I need some air after reading your post. I thought that garbage would only be found at HuffPo.
Oooooooo... Kayyyyy.... You completely misread my post, so let me try this again. It's just a bit cynical for the Dem's to want JL to stay so he can vote along w/ them. The assumption that he has any morals, values or ethics, and would vote along w/ those, OR the values of his constituents is completely absent. If it's a given that JL will vote along w/ the highest bidder, why not make _that_ the talking point? Even Ms. Maddow seems to go along w/ the assumption of JL's cynical political manuevering, instead of pointing it out.
Now, do you understand that? Or should I spell it out using sock puppets & crayons?
I think that those who want Lieberman's head or don't think that Hillary should be considered for Secretary of State, did not really hear or understand the implications of Obama's responses when asked what he's been reading lately - Abraham Lincoln's writings and Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals. I would suggest reading the latter. Obama is not going to indulge in hurt feelings or retaliations, and he will not rule out working with those who criticized or opposed him in the past. It's what Lincoln did, and many of his critics ended up as his most ardant supporters.
You are correct to an certain extent. What Lincoln did was get people from the other side who were knowledgeable and helpful in his cabinet. Lieberman does not fit into this category.
Besides, I'm not talking about kicking him out of the caucus. I'm only talking about kicking him off the Homeland Security Committee. He can have another committee. Like the "How Rats are Scum of the Earth Committee".
True about his cabinet, but it's also true that long before he bacame president he was never one to hold a grudge or criticize his competitors, and he was always gracious in defeat. Ultimately, that's what helped him garner the support he needed to get the nomination.
I'm not trying to imply that I hold Lieberman in any kind of regard. I'm just saying that I don't think it's realistic to expect Obama to support any kind of a call for his or anyone else's head.
I completely agree with you. This is not Obama's call and what Joe did is so completely unacceptable he needs to be punished somehow. This is not just Joe campaigning against Obama, it is Joe saying the things he said. I'm telling you to go look at the Convention speech. There is a link up there in another comment.
I have to leave now but I WILL be back.
I agree with your analysis of Obama. He certainly is doing his best to take the higher road - which is exactly what we all need.
Patience is needed at the moment. Nothing moves very fast, Obama is not the president yet, and a few senate races are as yet undecided.
Give this some time people. Time for 'Bible Spice' to keep her mug front and center, and time for Obama to get into office and begin to implement his agenda.
It is NOT hurt feelings or retaliation to get rid of a worthless dirtbag scum like Lieberman who is absolutely nothing but a roadblock to change!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Allowing that pile of shit to remain in such an important position is just asking for trouble. Removing him from a position that he is in no way shape or form competent to hold is NOT the same as refusing to work with the pile of shit!!!!! Let me guess... you think not impeaching the most criminal President in all of American history was a great idea too?
The upside to not impeaching Bush is that the GOP has all but been destroyed. Look who the frontrunner is for 2012.
Him?
http://www.everythingweird.com/images/handsom...
By the time 2012 gets here that guy just might be their best hope!
Actually, no. I think that not impeaching Bush was a crime of omission on the part of the House. My only point is that I wouldn't expect Obama to support these suggestions.
How could you possibly put Hillary in the same sentence with Lieberman? Dude, Lieberman campaigned for McCain and -shudder-, Palin , Hillary campaigned for Obama. Lieberman chose not to investigate the Katrina response disaster. Keeping him in a position of power is quite bad for Democrats. Hillary will be kickass. I'm not getting your logic.
Joe must indeed lose his chairmanship; however, the dems SHOULD not cast Joe out. If Joe wants to caucus with the Republicans then Joe MUST make that decision himself. If the dems cast Joe out then Holy Joe can make himself into a political martyr. It's perfectly acceptable to give the chair to a deserving dem IMO but MAKE Joe do his own dirty work from that point on.
Rachel is right, Joe can't be trusted for a single vote. Joe maight have historically voted with the dems on most issues, but Joe has since shown he has no morals, no loyalty, and no ethical backbone. I think it should be standard practice to lose a chair if you campaign for the other guy. Actions have consequences and Joe needs to learn that. If he decides to leave the dems then good riddance; however, he should leave on his own terms --- this will really minimize his waning power.
...to me, too. LIEberman, a man as aptly named as DICK Cheney, has actually proven his loyalty time and again >> his loyalty to himself, to Bush, to AIPAC and to Israel.
I think his chairmanship of such an important committee as Homeland Security should be revoked and if he wishes to stay in the Dem caucus - okay, but as you say, let's don't make this freakin' whiner into a martyr. I would also say that I have been troubled by the very name of that dept. - "Homeland" Security - as well as the fact that the Secretary of the dept., Chertoff, holds dual citizenship (US & Israel) and that the commitee chair is LIEberman (Iraq hawk extrodinaire and AIPAC suck-up).
I occasionally wonder which "homeland's" Security they are working hardest to ensure???!!!!
now watch the democrats completely ignore political common sense and the general public will.
Pelosi and Reid must go.
of keeping Torpedo Joe's oversight chair makes sense only if his ulterior motive is to subvert Barack Obama's administration.
Let us not forget that our country did not sink into this horrid condition solely by the mismanagement of Republicans. Our government after January 20th will still be occupied largely by the same crooks, sellouts and perverts that got us here.
The tainted advice of fake Democrats like Evan Byah is best disregarded just as readily as that of any Fox News propagandist.
is largely responsible for what we have today, a country in a mess and two cynical parties and and cynical party leaders. and no representation and plenty of taxation.
This is the kind of the thing that the Democrats have been pulling so often lately is exactly why I won't vote Democratic Party anymore. Sure I voted for a Democratic President and for some Democratic Justices of the Peace bt everything inbetween went to viable third party candidates. And until the Dems stop rolling over and caving in to the far right extremist radicals that have been and apperantly continue to run this country into the ground I'll keep refusing to vote for them. As of March 2007 the Democratic Party is officially on my shit list.
take his chairmanship away. let joe do what he wants .
and MAKE THE REPUBEs ACTUALLY FILIBUSTER. do not just roll over on the threat of filibuster, make them take to the floor and go on record. and then, in 2010 dems will have all their words as proof that they blocked the progress americans voted into power.
Harry need to grow a pair or go.
I am reminded of something I thought about McCain's sucking up to Bush after the 2000 primary when Bush's campaign spread rumors that his adopted Bangladesh child was his illegitimate Black child. I truly believe that people of integrity cannot ignore or gloss over its absence in others, though if one isn't "in relationship" with that person, maybe it doesn't matter that much. But, pandering to Bush after Bush spread vicious lies about him, McCain caved on critical positions he'd taken, laws he'd spearheaded.
Now, maybe Lieberman believes the Democrats will do the same thing, suck up to him because they "need" him for that 60-vote protection. We won't know if that's even an issue until all the votes and run-off votes are counted. But I'm with Rachel on this. First, it gives him WAY too much power over the Democratic agenda if he remains Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs. And indeed he might now decide to do to the Democrats what he wouldn't do to his buddy Republicans.
We know Lieberman's colors, and he's proved his lack of integrity over and over and over again. The Democrats don't need to remain in wimp mode. If they care about the Democratic agenda, they'll kick him out of the caucus and off that committee posthaste.
More classic partisanship from the LEFT! Just as brainwashed as the RIGHT! Both sides just want to 'win' rather than produce positive results for the country.
Crooks and Liars is a great site but continues to wear an eye patch on one side.
Fortunately, Obama's greatest strength is that he doesn't care about the old school thinking.
Interesting commentary from one whose nom de'guerre is after the chief architect of the French Reign of Terror.
Have you not been paying attention?
I wrote my Senator, Bill Nelson; he is usually hopeless for our issues, but you never know.
Here’s my letter;
Dear Senator Nelson,
Bravo and good job helping to get Obama elected.
We all worked hard to get Obama elected and we are all hopeful now.
All of us except for Joe Lieberman.
Of all the vile words spoken by the opposition, his were the worst.
Obama went to support him in Connecticut when the Democratic voters wanted to throw him out; for his trouble he got Joe speaking for John McCain.
We, the voters, have been telling you for years that Joe must go but you haven't been listening. If you need him in the caucus we understand that, but to let him continue as chairman of Homeland Security is wrong.
He will cause trouble because he is bitter and a bad loser. If he wants to vote with the caucus he will, but if it's inconvenient he won't.
Joe must go.
Sincerely,
Sondra
Very good letter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkS6qZg4mo4
Why can't we be friends?
You called me things that you could not have meant.
Now you can call me Mr. President...
Why can't we be friends?
Rachel has built an airtight case. Joe can apologize all he wants, there is no way he can be trusted. He simply could never rebuild trust after all he has said and done, not to mention the way he has chosen to say and do it. Consequences Joe. What you do has consequences. Bye. See ya.
I hope and pray the Democratic leadership (there's an oxymoron) watched this clip. Only a bunch of pathetic losers who not only don't have courage but don't have any convictions would keep LIEberman around. Screw the damn 60 votes. The guy is a traitor pure and simple. He can't be trusted. But there will always be mealy mouthed slugs like Evan Bayh and Harry Reid who care more about protecting their Senate brothers than doing the right thing.
That's why the Democratic Party is such a pathetic case. No courage, no convictions.
How about offering him Ambassador to Israel? It gets him out of here and then Ct. could get a Senator to represent "their" interests.
That's a great idea.
No, he could screw things up badly for Obama's plan.
I think he'd do well as ambassador to the Galapagos Islands. Require him to learn Spanish and Quichua (Incan language) so he can communicate with island dignitaries.
Democrats, quit reveling in the recent election and pay attention to business. You are about to go under fire! No leader just plunges a country into a 11 trillion dollar debt, a recession, 11 million lost jobs, 2 mismanaged, successful wars, a socialistic bailout of an INSURANCE COMPANY (give me a break) a robbery of 825 billion dollars from the American treasury WITHOUT A MASTER PLAN. This is a coup. This is a robbery! Out of their mouths: "This is one for the history books"! This is treason! There is too much more to add....NO to LIEBERMAN! YOU DON'T NEED A SNITCH! YOU DON'T NEED A MOLE! YOU WILL BE FIGHTING WITHIN THE NEXT 60 DAYS, LIEBERMAN, ZIONIST OR NOT, HAS SHOWN HIS LOYALTY. Reid...Do the smart thing. That is, unless you are one of them. JOE MUST GO.....NOW! LOYALTY STARTS HERE TO AMERICA! LIEBERMAN, McCAIN,PALIN AND MORE ONLY LOYAL TO THE BUSH CRIME FAMILY. This is a fifty year plan coming to fruition. They will not let it go...if at all...easily. Get Rid Of Joe....Rachel is Right! The battle lines are drawn! Listen to Flush! Hannity! Even that doped up guitar player. The battles lines are drawn. Prepare!
Paul Revere
to every Democrat in Congress.
Happily Obama doesn't have to approve of Lieberman's ousting, he just doesn't have to disapprove of it. There's plenty of "cover" for him, if that's what he's looking for.
I hate being on the side of the tinfoilers but this has "AIPAC full court press" written all over it. Only reason there could be this much fuss about keeping Holy Joe where he is. Any rational political system would have purged Joe the moment he endorsed McCain.
Don't need his obstruction, don't need his vote, don't need him.
Flush him.
Let's have some bold straight talk please..
Rahm Emanuel, then Joe Lieberman and now Hillary Clinton. (While we don't know if the leaks are true about Hillary- all the past leaks have been proven true).
Hillary represented everything in foreign policy we and the world didn't want. Joe and Emanuel aren't good representatives of ..anything.
So let's throw their resume and credentials in the trash. What's left? Better yet "What's Left?".
This is not only a big fu** you, to the Left -to all the youth and Democrats who believed in him, this represents three huge bonuses paid out to A*I*P*A*C* at the worlds expense.
I'm stunned at the turn of events.
So much for all the worry about who your candidate associates himself with before he gets the job. Because it's the after, that says the most about who your candidate really is.
Firstly, Hillary Clinton doesn't represent "everything in foreign policy we and the world didn't want." Yes, Senator Clinton happened to support the Iraq Resolution, but do you really believe that's all foreign policy is? Iraq?
Furthermore, and to her credit, Hillary Clinton spent more time, money and energy campaigning on behalf of Barack Obama than any other runner-up in the history of the United States. She did everything within her power, after the primaries, to make sure Obama was elected and the Democrats won.
Furthermore, Hillary Clinton has a strong track record of fighting for minority rights, women's rights, and universal healthcare. She is experienced and made of steel. Also, this illustrious "Left" you speak of has millions and millions of Hillary supporters. Or did you really think you were representative of the whole? That would be tremendously arrogant.
Similarly, while you might not agree with Rahm Emanuel on everything, I urge you to do some genuine, bipartisan research into the man's career instead of simply reading the blogs of rabid and radical left-wingers. My heart bleeds too, you know, and I think Emanuel is a no-nonsense man who speaks his mind. Furthermore, even if you don't like his views on foreign policy, (a) he won't have influence over foreign policy, and (b) his domestic policies have been criticized in the past for being too liberal. He's a tremendously socially-progressive individual.
So, please - drop this conspiracy theory-talk about AIPAC and, in your own words, "a secret war." Reality really is far more nuanced and complicated than a Hollywood blockbuster or what you might read at a '9/11 truth' website. And finally, try to resist the urge of hopping on the popular bandwagon of screaming 'The sky is falling!' the second something happens you disapprove of. It may come as a terrible shock, but Obama isn't perfect, nor will he perfectly represent all of your views.
People are far too self-centred.
Yeah troll, lets talk about her 'fighting for minority rights'.
Hey how's about that BK bill she helped write for her Wall Street buddies, then didn't vote on it to cover her ass. Do have even a clue to what that bill does to families and 'minorities'?? It's barbarous.
How about that Cluster Bomb Moratorium bill sponsored by Senator Feinstein? The majority of Democrats voted with Senator Feinstein. Your queen mother joined with all of the Republicans and a few 'Dems' like Lieberman and Carper to defeat it.
Do you know what those cute little toylike cluster bomblets due to children, you uninformed pablum spewing troll????
It's narrow minded people like you that put Bush in office. Stay off FOX and try reading a book sometime.
Firstly, I don't think you know what a "troll" is. A troll isn't someone who merely disagrees with you vehemently. I've been visiting this site and posting infrequently for several years now.
Secondly, accusing others of being a troll while being ridiculously inflammatory yourself is telling. My "queen mother?" Really? That's what you are going with?
Heck, I supported Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton during the primaries specifically because I was frustrated by the manner in which she campaigned.
Nonetheless, I am able to disagree with a politician once in a while and respect them regardless. I certainly don't resort to the childish mud-slinging that you have taken to. Re-read your own post aloud. Are you not embarrassed by your own acidic vitriol? Do you realize how self-righteous you seem when you hop on your soapbox about cluster bombs, as if I were a big fan of them? Essentially, you're behaving like a left-wing equivalent of Bill O'Reilly. I am not saying this merely to get your goat; you really are being a loud jerk. I am not upset, because this is the internet, but I think you really ought to consider the manner in which you come across.
Getting back on topic, though: Hillary Clinton, throughout her thirty years of service, has certainly made some choices I disapprove of. She has also done more in her lifetime for progressive causes than you or I ever will. She has made hundreds of positive, helpful choices too. I'm aware of the narrative that exists, painting her as an ice queen and a war-hawk. That's why I spoke of confirmation bias: you see her as Bad and thus everything she says or does has to move through your filter - your schema of interpretation. So she can't win in your eyes, and at the end of the day, you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
As a Canadian liberal (our Conservatives are like your Democrats) who disliked Bush long before he was elected in 2000, I am curious to hear your reasoning behind how my defending Clinton and Emanuel makes me 'the kind of person' that put Bush in office, because in my mind there is no connection.
Stereotypically, when a mob family discovers a rat within their ranks, they make sure that said rat 'sleeps with the fishes.' The Family would understand that no amount of apologizing on the part of the man who worked against them will change the fact that the aforementioned man is of weak moral character. What he did, he'll probably do again if given the opportunity.
Consider then that Joseph Lieberman isn't merely a "rat," but a smug one at that. He is a public, proud Judas! And still the Democrats can't find it in their hearts to be done with the man who has betrayed them time and time again. Barack Obama took to the radio and television to slander the name of Mr. Obama, repeating the all-too-familiar talking-points about the 'dangers' of a President Obama.
You would think it ludicrous that they wouldn't simply be done with the man, let alone outraged beyond measure. But here we are.
He already is not a friend of the Democrats; in my life I have not witness such vile disregard from not enforcing oversight to this recent campaign.
Democrats will have 59 seats; with the GOP in shambles, one more vote would not be difficult to attain. The days of lock step GOP are done.
We do not need Lieberman.
The Democratic constituency already sees the Pelosi/Reid congress as failure; ego the low approval rating.
It infuriates us all that this lack of fortitude will continue. The leadership of the Democrats should be called into question.
We frequently hear about, and also use in our discussions the notion of the Democrats' uncanny ability to "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory," and their enormous strategic failures in conducting politics or policy.
This is all correct, apt and to the point. The Democrats have proven this time and again.
However, I would contend that either taking the high road when dealing with treasonable offenses or high crimes committed by those with the power to do great harm, or to look past them- these are not only wrong and offensive for political reasons (which they are), but much more so for their genuinely harmful effects on human life, everywhere in the world. This is where such grievous dereliction of duty turns into a major crime.
To not have impeached and brought to justice and accountability the Bushco crime family and its many minions for major crimes against this country, crimes against humanity, treasonous shredding of the Constitution, invading citizens' privacy rights, carrying out despicable state-sponsored acts of torture and rendition- THIS FAILURE TO ACT IS IN ITSELF A MAJOR CRIME. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are answerable for these terrible crimes (of acquiescence and compliance, and violating the people's mandate of 2006).
Every single day that an innocent Iraqi or Afghan, as well as a young American gets killed in the illegal, immoral and criminal war waged by Bushco; every single day that an Iraqi, Afghan, or even American family loses a son, daughter, father, mother or any other innocent family member (these numbers being grotesquely high when it comes to the non-American "others")- the weight of these terrible crimes should befall the Democrats as much as they befall the R-party criminals. At the very least (and let me emphasize that this is a minimal assessment), these are terrible crimes of morality and moral failure on the part of the Democrats. Practically, of course, it is far more than a crime of morality (killing innocent human beings while sitting around in cozy chambers hatching diabolical plots is truly heinous in any human estimation worthy of civilization).
The Democrats quickly (or perhaps conveniently) forgot that one of their more successful Presidents (Clinton) was farcically impeached by the revolting R-party for blowjobs. And yet, they have failed to do anything about a gang of criminals that committed offenses next to which those of Richard Nixon pale to insignificance. Are any of these people responsible grown-ups? How on earth do these imbeciles even get to high office? Well- I guess the answer is obvious. Look where the vicious Chimperor is! Look where the Mooselini is! This speaks volumes for the state of human progress in this technological age. Even as a lifelong engineering professional and educator, I must say that I am filled with despair. Science and technology have obviously not helped the humanity inside us in the slightest.
Double-agent Joe Lieberman, grand Quisling, Opportunist par excellence, Back-stabber non-pareil: this pathetic caricature of a human being needs psychiatric treatment. Committee Chairmanship? This is insane! This crazy lunatic will endanger people around the world with his "Indiana marketplace" analysis of the bloodbath in Iraq and elsewhere. These are rabid, fundamentalist ideologues, and like Darth Cheney, Bill "Never Right" Kristol, and others- they endanger and weaken civilization.
I understand that the Democrats are as married to the disgusting lobbies as the other party. Yet, every once in a while, one hopes that they will do the right thing. Getting rid of Holy Joe from all committees would be one such. And, in the next election, the people of Connecticut must do the right thing by getting rid of this unprincipled Vichycrat once and for all.
Don't worry about 60 votes,do what is right and kick the S.O.B out.
I'm glad Rachel is there to point out the obvious. What's wrong with these people? Are they stupid or do they think we are? Lieberman's gotta go.
He's not a Democrat anymore. How hard does he have to work to prove it? Maybe if he did everything he could to sink the Democratic candidate for President, that would do it!
Wait. He already did that didn't he?
If you're counting on Joe, you're heading toward certain disaster. Better to maintain a reality-based view of how the Senate will work, than to factor Joe into some nonsensical vote-calculus.
He won't be there for us. It's as simple as that. Kick him to the curb.
but perhaps hinted they'd keep the Rat in order to get the LOUD and EMPHATIC response from the people. then they can say -to everybody- "See? We can't keep him"
This comes down to job performance. If Joe Loserman is doing a crappy job in his chair position, which by all accounts I have read that he is, then isn't it the majority party's job to get the crappy performing person out of that position? Or is it the Senate's duty to reward incompetence?
Screw the 60 votes, send Droopy dog to the doghouse. We the people will take our chances with 59 votes.
I've been sending lots of emails to Democratic Senators calling on them to dump Lieberman. I have little confidence that they will suddenly stop acting in the craven way they have in the past, but if they receive millions of messages calling for Lieberman to get the boot it might be effective.
Of course, as long as Harry Reid is the Senate Majority Leader, the Democrats will continue to flounder, so it would be a good idea to call for his being replaced as well. In reality, I think replacing Reid is more important than dumping Lieberman. A good majority leader will not tolerate Lieberman, so replacing Reid would be replacing Lieberman as well.
It's time to stop whining and let Senate Democrats know we want both Reid and Lieberman to go.
The sad reality is that Senate Democrats are a generally weak and depressing group. Very few deserve any respect at all, and only a handful are worthy of holding such important elective positions.
As for the question of why he wasn't disciplined sooner? This might be a reach, but I think it had something to do with the razor thin majority the dems possessed.
I say boot him, Rachel makes a good case. This rat might think it's a good idea to start an investigation over nothing just to secure his future as the chair of his commitee.
2. Arrest Lieberman. Put him in Gitmo, and waterboard him.
1. Tear down all cells in Gitmo but his.
I strongly support Rachel's reminder to all of us, that just because the Bush Administration is in total lame-duck mode and has only 2 months left, to continue to press for investigation of the corruption through-out Bush's 8 years of criminal conspiracy, obstruction of justice, misappropriation of funds, lying to congress, Perjury, and numerous other offenses committed by the several departments, agencies, administrations through-out the federal government.
We must completely understand why this great country was driven into two wars including war crimes and human atrocities committed. From my lowly angle of life, the bin Laden story sounds pretty good, but does not explain nor justify Iraq, let alone Bldg 7. Afghanistan appeared to be a reasoned call, but the war profiteers had already been briefed and primed for action.
We could go on endlessly with Valerie Plame, DoJ firings, Wiretapping, War Crimes, Interior dept contracts, EPA stifling, FDA and FCC shenanigans.
watch this video of Rachel Maddow----who now supports our interventions now that pro-war Obama has been elected.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XNAy2hs6oI&eu...
In nature and politics there are no rights and wrongs. However there are actions and their consequences. At this point in time there have been actions too numerous to mention by Joe Lieberman and no consequences of any kind to him. He made promises in 2006 that never got off the ground once he was given the Chair on Homeland Security. I hate that term "Homeland". It sound like something heard in Nazi Germany or Communist Russia before the Second World War. Joe made many promises to the Democratic leadership in the Senate and broke them all. He is not to be trusted. except when it comes to moving his political agenda/career along. Why would Joe resign, what would he do outside politics? He is a Senator and that is all he is capble of doing. Say Good-bye Joe, don't let the door his you on the ass on the way out.
Next, Obama will be telling us that Bush should remain President.
Lieberman turned his back on his party and supported McCain in a fashion that would suggest his loyalty to the Democrats was a mockery to say the very least...
That in itself will haunt the Democrats if they allow Lieberman his choice of a major chairmanship....
It would be precedence that other possible "blue dog democrats" may follow in the future knowing that this behavior is perfectly acceptable in the party....
As someone who is more liberal than the centrists and the left/center members of this community, Rahm is not one of my favorites; mainly because he sponsored/funded and helped elect some of the less progressive members of the new Democratic majority in the House. That's the bad news.
The good news is that he will be able to keep them in line so that they don't vote against a progressive agenda as the Blue Dogs usually do. If he can do that, a problem with Lieberman in the Senate will not be as bad as it could be without the much needed 60 seats. If the Senate is too obstructive because of Rs + Joe, some of them will not get re-elected next time around.
I'm hoping the Senators will grow a spine and dump Joe off of Homeland Security even if they don't throw him out of the caucus, but...you know how they are.
http://tools.advomatic.com/7/kickjoe/
Login or Register to post comments.